An inconvenient truth on Global Warming?

Why don't you trust me? What did I ever do to you?

 Kevin Trenberth was on NPR recently. He's been involved in the IPCC since the beginning. One of his comments was that he's always been very proud of the quality of the science that went into the reports, and very angry that the summaries were done with a political bias.

ok, I need to rephrase that.  I don't trust non triathlete scientists. 

The frustrating part for me, is there is a lot of very good science out there on both sides.  It is absolutely valid to understand our climate and how man effects that climate.  I'm a huge proponent of alternative/renewable energies as well.

I just get frustrated with the politicians telling me I have to support their buddies that got them elected by giving them billions of dollars in subsidies, because if I don't the earth will be destroyed for my children.  At this point, scientifically speaking, water vapor seems to have a greater greenhouse effect to the planet than CO2 does.

The problem is Tony, the science is actually quite solid. Water vapor ids a good example. All these things that are routinely brought up have been proven wrong/debunked long ago. Water vapor is certainly a greenhouse gas. But for it to do what is happening now, it would have to be a run away feed back loop. But it isn't. There is regulation to the water cycle.

Sun cycles, Earths' orbits, volcanoes... all have plenty of science behind why that isn't what causing what we see. Yet is is continually brought up. The problem is the science as to what is going on is quite sound. The predictions based on maybe not so much.

I was being facetious about water vapor.  I know it's not a cause of any warming, but it is a very powerful greenhouse gas (i think the most powerful) in a lab environment.

Now as for the science being solid on AGW, I respectfully disagree because the hypothesis of the AGW theory is that CO2 is the primary cause of the earths temperature rise.  The IPCC report and most of the alarmism all use an expected/projected earth temperature with a doubling of the CO2 levels as their barometer.

The hypothesis was very clearly stating that we as a planet had to drastically reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere or else the global temperature would grow out of control.  The IPCC and other bodies came up with several models which projected the earths temperature based on the increase in CO2.  Governments then grabbed onto these projections to impose policy which crippled industries and built a massive new green industry with Trillions of taxpayer dollars.
However, 20 years plus into the hypothesis, the empirical data does not support the original hypothesis.  CO2 levels have continued to increase, yet the global temperatures have had no statistically significant grown in the last 17 years.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it's easily provable in a lab environment but the earth is not a lab and the science is showing that the increasing CO2 levels have had almost no statistical impact on the earths temperature.

There have been 19 different peer reviewed papers published about climate sensitivity to CO2 by 42 scientists since January 1, 2012 that all describe a lower climate sensitivity to CO2.  Other more recent scientific papers have been heavily suggesting that natural variability is the dominate force in controlling the climate and not CO2.

This is where the other "religion" thread comes into play because there are so many people and bodies like the IPCC that are so certain that CO2 is causing the warming that they don't even question it.  It's more about trying to discover where the heat went during the "pause" of the last 15 years versus taking a step back and recognizing that the heat isn't there in the first place.

So, yes the science is becoming more and more solid, but it's solid in the sense of CO2 not being the driver to the temperature increases of the late 20th Century.  Yet the IPCC is in a political pickle because their projections have not come true and their models have all failed.  They're trying to step it back, but governments who have invested heavy political capital in the alarmist "science" are now apparently pressuring them to stay the course.

We are here for such a small speck of nothing in the history of the Earth.  Yeah, like a lot of folks, I try to be a decent steward for my completely insignificant time here..... it's an amazing place. But I know the Earth doesn't really care what I think.....I just do it as a show of appreciation. 

The Earth will take care of itself.....it will be here for BILLIONS of years after I am gone.  If you think you are saving it from something a BILLION years down the road then, by all means, carry on. 

Personally, I don't think mankind can make a more egotistical statement....we will be here until the Earth has enough.....and not a minute longer.

There are stupid men getting rich over this crap.....that's all I need to know.

You seem to be pretty sure of yourself.

Take a look at all the predictions that the experts, including Al the I made a Bigillion dollars Gore have made and the accuracy of those predictions and I think you will know the truth.

ETA, good deal, I am logged into the correct account,,,, I'm still paying for that last one.

Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood 

I was being facetious about water vapor.  I know it's not a cause of any warming, but it is a very powerful greenhouse gas (i think the most powerful) in a lab environment.

Now as for the science being solid on AGW, I respectfully disagree because the hypothesis of the AGW theory is that CO2 is the primary cause of the earths temperature rise.  The IPCC report and most of the alarmism all use an expected/projected earth temperature with a doubling of the CO2 levels as their barometer.

The hypothesis was very clearly stating that we as a planet had to drastically reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere or else the global temperature would grow out of control.  The IPCC and other bodies came up with several models which projected the earths temperature based on the increase in CO2.  Governments then grabbed onto these projections to impose policy which crippled industries and built a massive new green industry with Trillions of taxpayer dollars.
However, 20 years plus into the hypothesis, the empirical data does not support the original hypothesis.  CO2 levels have continued to increase, yet the global temperatures have had no statistically significant grown in the last 17 years.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it's easily provable in a lab environment but the earth is not a lab and the science is showing that the increasing CO2 levels have had almost no statistical impact on the earths temperature.

There have been 19 different peer reviewed papers published about climate sensitivity to CO2 by 42 scientists since January 1, 2012 that all describe a lower climate sensitivity to CO2.  Other more recent scientific papers have been heavily suggesting that natural variability is the dominate force in controlling the climate and not CO2.

This is where the other "religion" thread comes into play because there are so many people and bodies like the IPCC that are so certain that CO2 is causing the warming that they don't even question it.  It's more about trying to discover where the heat went during the "pause" of the last 15 years versus taking a step back and recognizing that the heat isn't there in the first place.

So, yes the science is becoming more and more solid, but it's solid in the sense of CO2 not being the driver to the temperature increases of the late 20th Century.  Yet the IPCC is in a political pickle because their projections have not come true and their models have all failed.  They're trying to step it back, but governments who have invested heavy political capital in the alarmist "science" are now apparently pressuring them to stay the course.

Sounds like some of those papers might have been written by scientists, so I guess there are few you find credible

touche. 

Obviously there are good scientists.  I just get so frustrated with people pushing government policy and more specifically taxes based on "scientific certainty" when the science is anything but certain.

I'm not a scientist and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do follow both pro and anti AGW blogs very closely.  (For some reason this whole topic fascinates me).  I tried to be somewhat objective, but I'm genuinely struggling to see any science that supports CO2 having any statistical impact on the earths temperature when it comes to reality.  I see a lot of shell games and politics trying to convince me that the "science is settled" and I'm just a flat earther (thanks Al) if I don't agree with CO2 being the cause of the warming.

We very easily could have a major impact on conditions required for life on earth. Certainly as it related to higher life forms. I'm thinking of something other than CO2 emissions though. A large scale nuclear war would throw enough debris into the atmosphere to dramatically change the climate. Probably wouldn't be much fun, either. Duck and cover!

OK, seriously. I do think there is data supporting a relationship between global warming and industrialization. I have no idea if it is significant enough to cause climate change, how self-regulating the system is, or if any change is dwarfed by long-term geological processes. In a political environment (i.e. research funding) the chances of any purely objective outcome occurring are slim to none.

Sure, I agree.  But still, over time, the Earth will take care of itself.  I don't have any doubt that mankind will one day create a situation where human life is no longer viable here....but that doesn't have anything to do with this planet.  New life will arise in time, because this is one of those unique places in the universe where life is possible.  I think new life, in some form, will always spring up here.

Just as an example, surely the Earth was a MUCH warmer place when giant reptiles could live here.  This planet will always sprout life.....it's perfectly suited for it.

It may surprise you, but I actually agree with you about us having an impact, it's just a matter of how much of an impact when compared to all the other forces in nature.

I read something about 6 months ago that was pretty interesting.  It contrasted the human impact of increasing the earths temperature by 3° C with decreasing the earths temperature by 3° C.   It was pretty overwhelming that a 3° increase was far better than a 3° decrease as far as the effects on humanity.

In other words, who is to say (Al doesn't count) all this global warming is a bad thing.  :)

Where it's not settled is in the precise amount of warming (though in the long run, the precise # isn't super important), how fast it will occur, and what the effects will be.  In other words, the things those pushing one policy or another care about.  We can make informed guesses based on how climates in the past have reacted to similar conditions, models, etc.  Some of those informed guesses are more informed than others and all have their own amount of uncertainty.  Basically, like LB said, the Earth itself doesn't care one way or the other what happens to us, it'll get along just fine either way.  But it seems to me that's something we might like to care about... 

Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by tuwood 

touche. 

Obviously there are good scientists.  I just get so frustrated with people pushing government policy and more specifically taxes based on "scientific certainty" when the science is anything but certain.

I'm not a scientist and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do follow both pro and anti AGW blogs very closely.  (For some reason this whole topic fascinates me).  I tried to be somewhat objective, but I'm genuinely struggling to see any science that supports CO2 having any statistical impact on the earths temperature when it comes to reality.  I see a lot of shell games and politics trying to convince me that the "science is settled" and I'm just a flat earther (thanks Al) if I don't agree with CO2 being the cause of the warming.

Obviously we've gone over this over and over on here.  To say the science is settled is wrong in the sense that it's overly broad.  It's settled in that we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we're responsible for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the earth is warming because of it.  To argue otherwise is to not only throw out all of the understandings of the fundamental physical processes of how the climate works that we've learned over the past 200 years, but to replace those understandings with... nothing.  No other physical mechanisms have been able to explain these observations.  To say that CO2 has no statistical impact on the earths temperature is just flat wrong.  Sorry.  If that were the case the earth wouldn't be habitable.  It would be like the moon: either be a frozen ball of ice or totally scorched depending on if you were in the sun or shade.  Overall the avg temp would be about -18*C.  CO2 and the other GHG's in the atmosphere are what make earth livable for us, and that's statistically significant .

Where it's not settled is in the precise amount of warming (though in the long run, the precise # isn't super important), how fast it will occur, and what the effects will be.  In other words, the things those pushing one policy or another care about.  We can make informed guesses based on how climates in the past have reacted to similar conditions, models, etc.  Some of those informed guesses are more informed than others and all have their own amount of uncertainty.  Basically, like LB said, the Earth itself doesn't care one way or the other what happens to us, it'll get along just fine either way.  But it seems to me that's something we might like to care about... 

I actually agree with all three of your points, however the part about CO2 warming the earth I have to throw in an asterisk because we don't know how much of the warming is due to CO2.  I'd even go so far to say the amount of warming attributable to CO2 through scientific experiment is trivial at best.

As I mentioned, I'm not a scientist so I have to rely on what I read.  Dr. Bob Carter did a pretty good write up that sums up the disagreements fairly well.  I read something similar to this several years ago which changed my perspective a lot.
http://www.aitse.org/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/

In the link I posted Dr. Carter describes Occam’s Razor and the null hypothesis.  Here is how he describes it as it pertains to the AGW hypothesis:

The phrase ‘Occam’s Razor’ is now generally used as shorthand to represent the fundamental scientific assumption of simplicity. To explain any given set of observations of the natural world, scientific method proceeds by erecting, first, the simplest possible explanation (hypothesis) that can explain the known facts. This simple explanation, termed the null hypothesis, then becomes the assumed interpretation until additional facts emerge that require modification of the initial hypothesis, or perhaps even invalidate it altogether.

Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, the proper null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.

It is one of the more extraordinary facts about the IPCC that the research studies it favours mostly proceed using an (unjustified) inversion of the null hypothesis – namely that global climate changes are presumed to be due to human-related carbon dioxide emissions, unless and until specific evidence indicates otherwise.

The article goes on to give several examples of how CO2 could be proven as the primary driver for global temperatures, but in every instance the hypothesis fails.  Yet, due to the inversion of the null hypothesis the AGW supporters insist that everyone else must prove that it is NOT the primary cause of the warming.  However, that's not how it works.  I know it's not the same but it's kind of like me saying God is real and unless you can prove he is not real it is scientific fact that he is real.

You said that "No other physical mechanisms have been able to explain these observations."  However, natural variability explains it and the changes of the 20th century fall well within the historical variability ranges.

Just out of curiosity.  What type of data would it take for you to change your opinion about CO2 being the primary driver of global temperatures?  (if that's not your position, I apologize in advance)

But see Tony... most of the above is about "predictions"... not about the science. As Drew pointed out, and was my point, the science of CO2 being a green hose gas, us unlocking and making it rise is pretty much settled. And like most conspiracy type stuff...they don't ever throw out other proof... they throw out other "possibilities".

If you say that Earth is not warming and all this is a joke... well then it just is. there is no explanation needed for nothing. Yet then all the "reasons" for warming and possibilities get thrown out. Why? There is no other competing theory as to what we are observing that has any real teeth. And most that are mentioned, have already been proven wrong... which leaves us with AGW being the only one left stand with the most proof behind it.

What you have been talking about is you do not believe in the "politics" of GW. Fine, neither do I. But politics is not science.

I do believe man is unlocking CO2... and I just don't care. Sorry, it's true. Because as LB said.. the Earth will be just fine. Man will continue to grow and pollute our fish bowl until it can no longer grow because of it. It's called nature. And we are no different than locusts, or other animals with no natural predators.

There's no question we're unlocking CO2 and there's no question the earth has warmed over the past 100 years, so I'm not trying to suggest the earth hasn't warmed.  What I'm saying is that for the last 17 years the earth has not had any statistically significant warming.  Even the IPCC in their report to be released in a couple days backs this up and they're struggling to explain it.  If CO2 is the main driver of the temperature increase and CO2 has increased by 10% in the last 17 years then the earth's temperature would have had to increase in this time period but it hasn't.

You and Drew mentioned that there's no other explanation for the warming, but I disagree.  As I mentioned in my previous post the earth has warmed and cooled throughout our history.  It has been much hotter and it has been much cooler, and the rate of change has been both slower and faster than it was in the 20th century.  The natural variability that scientists are still trying to fully understand includes many things such as CO2, sun, sea temperature, volcanoes, etc...  However, CO2 is increasingly being identified as less and less significant due to all of the other factors.  There has been a tremendous amount of science the last couple of years coming out indicating the climate is a lot less sensitive to CO2 than was previously thought, but the political side of this debate is ignoring that evidence and pushing forward with doom and gloom.

There are many different charts describing the historical temperatures with various margins of error.  However, they all show significant variability in the earths temperature over time.  Here's one example showing the variability in the Greenland ice layer.

Here's another one from the IPCC's AR1 report.

As I mentioned in my previous post, both from a temperature range and a rate of change standpoint, the temperature changes of the 20th century do fall within historical patterns.  Our current temperature is roughly recovering back to what it was ~1000 years ago prior to the "little ice age".

Here's the thing, "natural variability" is not a physical mechanism.  There are many physical mechanisms which are subject to natural variability which affect the climate - changes in ocean currents and wind patterns, orbital cycles, ENSO and PDO cycles, etc.  But countless studies have looked at these processes and found that none could account for the amount of warming for two big reasons (see this for one of the most recent.  They estimate the magnitude of internal variability at about 0.3*C which is well below the amount of warming we've seen so far) 1) temperature changes due to internal variability are essentially just a shuffling around of existing energy.  They do not change the overall energy budget. Over the long term, above average temps will be balanced out by below average temps and we should see no changes in the overall energy budget of the earth.  but that's not what observations show.  We know that the earth is retaining more energy than it's losing which is why it's warming.  For internal variability to play a role in this long term trend there must be some physical process responsible for this change in energy retention and none of the processes which drive natural variability have that capability.  Internal variability can reshuffle energy to cause it to be warmer or colder than average for years or a decade or two, but there's no physical process to cause an increased retention of energy, and that's exactly what we're seeing. If natural variability were driving things we should expect to see as many below average years as above average.  Instead, the last month with a global temp below the 20th century avg was Feb of 1985! 2) if anything, natural variability should actually be decreasing temperatures, not increasing them.  We have been in a phase with many La Ninas which tend to result in below avg global temperatures and we're just coming out of a record low solar cycle, and may be peaking at a record low high (although solar input only accounts for a very small amount of natural variability anyway).  

Which kind of ties into the 'pause' and estimates of a decreased sensitivity.  One of the big things to recognize as far as the pause goes is that global warming during this period has NOT stopped, in fact if anything, it's increased.  It is wrong to say that the earth as a whole has not had any statistically significant warming.  What has changed is that the distribution of the warming has changed.  While global surface temperatures have remained steady, ocean temperatures have continued to increase.  The earth as a whole is still continuing to retain more energy than it emits which is why See here for a better explanation and good summary of the current science.  And yet despite this pause, it's not like we returned to normal or anything.  The first 12 years of this century were among the top 14 since we started keeping records 140 years ago.

I think the studies finding a lower estimate of sensitivity are important because they provide evidence that a sensitivity of around 2*C is indeed a reasonable estimate.  But there are a few points to consider.  One, is that these studies do not displace other estimates of a higher sensitivity, they just inform our range of possibilities.  Right now, the best estimates are that the sensitivity is between 2-4.5*C, so these studies don't radically alter our understanding (BTW, if CO2 were totally uncoupled from the climate the estimate of sensitivity would be exactly 0).  Another thing to consider is that the studies finding a lower sensitivity are highly dependent on a short, recent period where surface temperatures have not warmed as much.  If next year or the year after we get a higher year, the models used to get the lower sensitivity estimates would increase and actually fall in line with other, higher estimates.  They are useful for informing the range but are by no means the final word.  A last point is that even if the sensitivity is 2 instead of 4, all that does is buy us time.  It doesn't mean the climate won't warm as much, it just means it will take longer.  That might make a difference as far as policy goes, but it won't change the screwedness of my kids and grandchildren.   

As far as the little ice age goes, see this.

Let me ask you this Tony: are you this passionate over the Big Bang Theory... Perhaps that's a bad example. OK, let's say Astro Physics. My guess is you find it interesting, but don't give much thought about it. I'm sure you do not spent much time on the internet searching for things to prove it wrong.

Earth's climate is no different. It is something that is very interesting, but I don't plan my day around it. It's just an interesting subject and all the interactions that take place to keep our fish bowl going.

What get's everyone's panties in a twist is politics. And the changes they want to make based on predictions and assumptions. Does for me. I can't really fathom spending the kind of money they want when they can't tell me what return I will get for it if ANY.

But as far as looking for things that prove GW... well they are just like things that disprove it... what ever you look for, that's what you will find.

First off, as I've mentioned before Drew, I really appreciate your responses on this topic because I know you know a lot more about the science on this stuff than I do and I really respect your opinion.

I'm posting the link below from an AGW skeptic site not to challenge you per se' but more to demonstrate how confusing it is for somebody like me to understand things objectively.  It's basically stating the exact opposite of what you just wrote above.

Reactions to ‘the pause’: Grasping at strawmen in hidey holes

Ever since the NODC released their ocean heat content data for the depths of 0-2000 meters and published Levitus et al (2012), it seems that each time a skeptic writes a blog post or answers a question in an interview, in which he or she states that global surface temperatures haven’t warmed in “X” years, a global warming enthusiast will counter with something to the effect of: global warming hasn’t slowed because ocean heat content continues to show warming at depths of 0-2000 meters. Recently, those same people are linking Balmaseda et al (2013) and claiming the warming of ocean heat content data continues.

It is true that the NODC’s ARGO-era ocean heat content (0-2000 meters) continues to warm globally, but always recall that the ARGO data had to be adjusted, modified, tweaked, corrected, whatever, in order to create that warming. That is, the “raw” ocean heat content data for 0-2000 meters shows the decreased rate of warming after the ARGO floats were deployed. (See the post here.) Also, while the much-revised NODC ocean heat content data for 0-2000 meters might show warming globally, it shows very little warming for the Northern Hemisphere oceans since 2005. See Figure 1.

It goes on and links several articles challenging other aspects of the deep ocean hypothesis and raises what I feel are some valid questions.

So, obviously we're not going to figure anything out arguing in the forum.  I do still enjoy these threads because it gives me new stuff to read.  I don't play golf anymore so my hobbies consist of reading AGW studies. (oh yeah, and occasionally working out)  lol

Totally different because nobodies trying to tax me and my family based on the big bang theory.    Even the whole evolution vs. creation debate is fun for me, but I don't get too wound up on it because it's purely an academic (and religious) exercise to try and understand the science of it.  I do have some challenges here and there of things I don't necessarily agree with in those areas, but as mentioned before nobody's charging me 50 cents more a gallon for evolution tax.

If AGW was purely a scientific discussion about is the earth warming or cooling then it would be a fun academic exercise.  But when the scientists 10 years ago tell me it's going to heat up X with 97% certainty and it doesn't happen I have to raise an eyebrow and question things.  If it goes on another 10 years and doesn't heat up any more I'll have to raise another eyebrow.

10 years from now, Tony walks into a bar and the bartender says:  "Tony, why so surprised?"

For a rebuttal of Tisdale, there is a thread here where they point out flaws in his analysis and respond to his criticisms.  But to expect the avg person to look into it that deeply is nuts.  I find it interesting too, but my eyes just glazed over when I saw that page.  The best we can do is to follow the preponderance of evidence where it leads us.  To take the occums razor example, which is more likely, a known greenhouse gas that we've been adding to the atmosphere is raising the temperature or some as yet undiscovered forcing is making the earth retain more energy but the thousands of scientists looking for it are too incompetant or in cahoots to find it?

For me, as an ecologist, I see the effects of the warming all over the place and that's where my concern comes from.  I'm not a doomsayer, it's not going to wipe out humanity, but the two things that really worry me are 1) the effects we're seeing are  happening much faster and more widespread than was predicted even just a few years ago.  Complex systems such as the climate (or stock market for example) often behave in unpredictable ways and often make abrupt changes that are hard to predict and 2) this is a one way street.  There's no going back once the CO2 is in the atmosphere.  If we get 50 years down the road and say 'oh sh*t, this is really bad', that's it, too bad, we're stuck with it.  

I think the critics play a valuable role in pointing out the places where the science IS flawed or there are large uncertainties.  These drive research in order to answer those questions and close gaps and in the end increase our understanding.  But overall, most of the skeptics arguments are just nibbling around the edges.  They help drive the refinement of estimates, but don't really change our understanding of the climate system very much.